Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[John Covici]

Well, I don't want any net nannies sensoring the news I get, any ideas
the nanny does not like I will never see (?)

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 15:37:48 -0400,
b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
> I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote (to
> both customers and the public), and support various curation services
> like netnanny.
> 
> Promoting the idea that third-party curation is a service one can
> obtain into the public discussion can only be good.
> 
> -- 
> -Barry Shein
> 
> Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | 
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

 John Covici wb2una
 cov...@ccs.covici.com

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

On August 7, 2019 at 18:43 cov...@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) wrote:
 > Well, I don't want any net nannies sensoring the news I get, any ideas
 > the nanny does not like I will never see (?)

Then you wouldn't buy it. Netnanny exists now, do you use it? No?
Would you use it? No. Then nothing would change.

P.S. Netnanny is an actual product parents can buy to put a filter on
their children's access to the internet. I have no interest, it's just
become a term for that kind of thing.

 > On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 15:37:48 -0400,
 > b...@theworld.com wrote:
 > > 
 > > 
 > > I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote (to
 > > both customers and the public), and support various curation services
 > > like netnanny.
 > > 
 > > Promoting the idea that third-party curation is a service one can
 > > obtain into the public discussion can only be good.
 > > 
 > > -- 
 > > -Barry Shein
 > > 
 > > Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | 
 > > http://www.TheWorld.com
 > > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
 > > The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
 > 
 > -- 
 > Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
 > How do
 > you spend it?
 > 
 >  John Covici wb2una
 >  cov...@ccs.covici.com

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

Netnanny is mostly sold for parents to put on their children's access.

You're not thinking this through.

Promote third-party curation, those who never want to see content they
find disturbing can PURCHASE* that service rather than bugging their
congressperson to demand that ISPs provide this for everyone for free
by law.

* No reason it couldn't be ad-supported but I hope you get my point.

On August 7, 2019 at 16:34 kmedc...@dessus.com (Keith Medcalf) wrote:
 > 
 > On Wednesday, 7 August, 2019 13:38, b...@theworld.com wrote:
 > 
 > >I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote
 > >(to >both customers and the public), and support various curation 
 > >services like netnanny.
 > 
 > IANAP (I Am Not A Psychiatrist) however, persons who, when reading or 
 > hearing the words of others cannot control the images which leap, unbidden, 
 > into their minds causing them to offend themselves or otherwise instill in 
 > themselves a self-created state of distress, should, IMHO, seek professional 
 > help from a trained and certified mental health professional who may be able 
 > to help them overcome their mental disability either through psychotherapy 
 > or the administration of psychoactive drugs.
 > 
 > I do not think NetNanny is a certified mental health professional in any 
 > jurisdication -- at least not those within the NANOG region.
 > 
 > -- 
 > The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
 > lot about anticipated traffic volume.
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Keith Medcalf]

On Wednesday, 7 August, 2019 13:38, b...@theworld.com wrote:

>I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote
>(to >both customers and the public), and support various curation
>services like netnanny.

IANAP (I Am Not A Psychiatrist) however, persons who, when reading or hearing 
the words of others cannot control the images which leap, unbidden, into their 
minds causing them to offend themselves or otherwise instill in themselves a 
self-created state of distress, should, IMHO, seek professional help from a 
trained and certified mental health professional who may be able to help them 
overcome their mental disability either through psychotherapy or the 
administration of psychoactive drugs.

I do not think NetNanny is a certified mental health professional in any 
jurisdication -- at least not those within the NANOG region.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

I propose that the RIGHT THING TO DO would be to seek out, promote (to
both customers and the public), and support various curation services
like netnanny.

Promoting the idea that third-party curation is a service one can
obtain into the public discussion can only be good.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Rob McEwen]

On 8/7/2019 10:50 AM, Tony Patti wrote:


FYI, /Bloomberg BusinessWeek/ published _TODAY_ a 3,200-word article 
by Felix Gillette entitled*

"Section 230 Was Supposed to Make the Internet a Better Place. It Failed"*
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-07/section-230-was-supposed-to-make-the-internet-a-better-place-it-failed 





If the whole Section 230 gets deleted - and isn't carefully replaced - 
then many DNSBLs and spam filters and spam filtering technology 
providers with get sued out of business (even if just by SLAPP lawsuits 
suddenly making more progress and costing a fortune in attorney feeds). 
These costs will then get passed onto consumers in the form of either 
MUCH WORSE spam filtering, or much higher costs for email hosting 
services. The same is true for Internet content filters, too.


Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!

--
Rob McEwen

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Tony Patti]

FYI, Bloomberg BusinessWeek published TODAY a 3,200-word article by Felix 
Gillette entitled

"Section 230 Was Supposed to Make the Internet a Better Place. It Failed"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-07/section-230-was-supposed-to-make-the-internet-a-better-place-it-failed

Tony Patti
[SW_logo_HighRes]<http://www.swalter.com/>
CIO

t: (215) 867-8401
f: (215) 268-7184
e: t...@swalter.com<mailto:t...@swalter.com>
w: www.swalter.com<http://www.swalter.com/>







-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mel Beckman
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:36 PM
To: John Levine 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet



John,



Please reread my comments. I did not say “carriers” and specifically excluded 
the FCC’s definition. I said “Common Carriers”, as defined by Common Law. The 
DMCA asserts that they must operate as CCs under this definition: in order to 
get protection under Safe Harbor they must function as a “passive conduit” of 
information.



-mel via cell



> On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:36 PM, John Levine 
> mailto:jo...@iecc.com>> wrote:

>

> In article 
> <6956e76b-e6b7-409f-a636-c7607bfd8...@beckman.org<mailto:6956e76b-e6b7-409f-a636-c7607bfd8...@beckman.org>>
>  you write:

>> Mehmet,

>>

>> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
>> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
>> customers.

>

> ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never have been.  Even the ISPs

> that are subsidaries of telcos, which are common carriers for their

> telco operations, are not common carriers for their ISPs.

>

> This should not come as surprise to anyone who's spent 15 minutes

> looking at the relevant law.

>

> ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case

> law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.

>

>

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

> ISPs and CDNs don't have to provide service to anyone. 

You mean like bakers don’t have to sell cakes to anyone? :)

 -mel 

> On Aug 6, 2019, at 9:40 PM, John Levine  wrote:
> 
> ISPs and CDNs don't have to provide service to
> anyone.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[John Levine]

In article <56cbb25e-9a53-4e5e-b2cb-3e769112f...@truenet.com> you write:
>John,
>
>Seriously, just quote so people don’t have to look it up.  Honestly, though 
>others are probably right in that case law usually will over-ride written law 
>due
>to our legal structure.

Well, kind of, but in this particular case they're well aligned.

>> ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case
>> law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.
>
>[ (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as 
> the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information 
> content
>provider. ]
>
>Sounds great on paper, but sort of caught backpage in a quondam, perhaps 
>because they installed filters to begin with.

Keep reading and look at 47 USC 230(c)(2).

 No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held
 liable on account of— 

 (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to
 or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
 obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
 otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
 constitutionally protected; ...

Courts have construed "otherwise objectionable" very broadly.  It
includes spam filtering.

The section Mel has been trying to interpret is different, 17 USC
512(a) which says that if you're carrying traffic in a mechanical way
(defined in more detail, see the statute) you're not responsible for
copyright violations.  This is not even sort of like being a common
carrier, of course.


>Technically, will anyone else booting customer’s for any offense of TOS be 
>similar is still up for grabs, since it’s basically a political nightmare for
>lawyers right now.

No, really, it's not.  ISPs and CDNs don't have to provide service to
anyone.  I suppose a lawyer could make a case if a provider refused to
provide service to members of a protected class ("we don't serve black
people") but the kind of people you find on 8chan aren't a protected
class.

R's,
John

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Eric Tykwinski]

John,

Seriously, just quote so people don’t have to look it up.  Honestly, though 
others are probably right in that case law usually will over-ride written law 
due to our legal structure.

> On Aug 6, 2019, at 10:36 PM, John Levine  wrote:
> 
> In article <6956e76b-e6b7-409f-a636-c7607bfd8...@beckman.org> you write:
>> Mehmet,
>> 
>> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
>> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
>> customers.
> 
> ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never have been.  Even the ISPs
> that are subsidaries of telcos, which are common carriers for their
> telco operations, are not common carriers for their ISPs.
> 
> This should not come as surprise to anyone who's spent 15 minutes
> looking at the relevant law.
> 
> ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case
> law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.

[ (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
 No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the 
publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content 
provider. ]

Sounds great on paper, but sort of caught backpage in a quondam, perhaps 
because they installed filters to begin with.
Technically, will anyone else booting customer’s for any offense of TOS be 
similar is still up for grabs, since it’s basically a political nightmare for 
lawyers right now.
Right or wrong in your philosophy you are basically screwed imho.  I guess 
that’s why Anne’s got a job...

* Seriously though I think we should probably put a discussion thread in here, 
it’s reminding me of outages saying me too.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

John,

Please reread my comments. I did not say “carriers” and specifically excluded 
the FCC’s definition. I said “Common Carriers”, as defined by Common Law. The 
DMCA asserts that they must operate as CCs under this definition: in order to 
get protection under Safe Harbor they must function as a “passive conduit” of 
information.  

-mel via cell

> On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:36 PM, John Levine  wrote:
> 
> In article <6956e76b-e6b7-409f-a636-c7607bfd8...@beckman.org> you write:
>> Mehmet,
>> 
>> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
>> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
>> customers.
> 
> ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never have been.  Even the ISPs
> that are subsidaries of telcos, which are common carriers for their
> telco operations, are not common carriers for their ISPs.
> 
> This should not come as surprise to anyone who's spent 15 minutes
> looking at the relevant law.
> 
> ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case
> law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.
> 
> 

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[John Levine]

In article <6956e76b-e6b7-409f-a636-c7607bfd8...@beckman.org> you write:
>Mehmet,
>
>I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
>carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
>customers.

ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never have been.  Even the ISPs
that are subsidaries of telcos, which are common carriers for their
telco operations, are not common carriers for their ISPs.

This should not come as surprise to anyone who's spent 15 minutes
looking at the relevant law.

ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case
law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Dan Hollis]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Rob McEwen wrote:
I'm so tired of this thread - but the bottom line is that censorship and even 
the definition of "hate" and "racism" (especially when used in the 
vernacular!) are extremely subjective and can lead to situations where 
reasonable people disagree. And if/when such policies are implemented to try 
to limit or shut down such speech, horrific unintended collateral damage will 
LIKELY occur. Also, totalitarian regimes OFTEN use the same arguments to get 
their foot in the door of controlling and suppressing speech. Even now, the 
mainstream news media is ALREADY highlighting a very selective part of these 
murderer's ideologies, and suppressing other parts, in order to convey an 
overall impression of their ideologies that doesn't actually match them, but 
furthers certain biased agendas. So actions to suppress "hate speech" and 
"racism" based on the 1/2 truths that most have been brainwashed to believe 
about these evil murderers' beliefs (1/2 contradicted by their own actual 
writings, which are already evil!), is ALREADY well on its way towards 
potentially causing collateral damage by unplugging or suppressing 
forums/platforms that really don't closely match the actual ideology of the 
shooters.


those who perform political curation of content are at risk of losing 
their section 230 protections.


archive.fo/zOUBG

if you really want this to happen, go ahead and "remove racism out of 
internet". you won't like the result.


-Dan

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

And now this has happened, in a nutshell France's lower house says
remove content which is "obviously hateful" (words used in the
article) in 24 hours or face up to a 1.25M euro fine.

Granted perhaps it won't become law.

But legislators are clearly becoming consumed with this whole internet
fad and when all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like a
nail.

I'd argue all they're trying to legislate is free curation from
providers which is a really lousy thing to do.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/frances-lower-house-passes-online-hate-speech-law/ar-AAE5prg

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Anne,

I can see the 4th amendment violation here, but are there operational issues 
with ISPs? For example, CALEA requires telecommunications carriers (or VoIP 
providers) to provide voice data streams to law enforcement agencies in real 
time. NSLs require production of customer information in secret, which means 
the ISP needs internal security procedures to avoid criminal violations of the 
terms of the NSL. So impacted ISP’s have a clear operational concerns in both 
cases.

What is the CLOUD Act’s operational impact? Is it the same as responding to an 
ordinary subpoena or search warrant? FISA, for example, has similar 4A issues, 
but no operational component for ISPs (the government intercepts data using its 
own means in the Internet backbone). 

One operational issue with CLOUD might be how much data an ISP turns over in a 
CLOUD Act request (which I gather still requires due process for the ISP). For 
example, when your example law enforcement agency in the UK uses their power 
under a CLOUD executive agreement to collect a foreign target’s data from a US 
ISP, can the ISP legally sanitize that data to mask US citizens information? 
This is, after all, the standard with FISA 702 (requiring the gov to get a 
warrant before looking at information collected on US intelligence agencies 
surveilling foreign targets). If that’s the case, then there is an operational 
interest in ISP-operated software to do the sanitizing.

If it’s not the case, and the ISP has to turn over anything requested, I’m not 
seeing the operational impact. The technical effort is no different than with 
today’s domestic subpoenas, which ISPs deal with all the time.

 -mel

 
> On Aug 6, 2019, at 11:17 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On August 5, 2019 at 19:02 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu (Valdis Klētnieks) wrote:
>> 
>> Hint:  The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because many 
>> ISPs
>> aren't mere conduits.  And this thread got started regarding a CDN, which is 
>> very much
>> all about storing data on servers.
> 
> I acted as an expert witness for the FBI regarding a case which
> revolved around whether email spending time on intermediate servers is
> "storing" the data or is it just another form of wire transmission?
> 
> I don't think they came to a definitive conclusion, the case was
> basically settled out of court, plea-bargained I think, it was a
> criminal matter.
> 
> But needless to say, once again, a non-legal-expert's reading of
> "storing data on servers" doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the
> legal world.
> 
> It turned out to be very important at least in theory since illegally
> intercepting a wire transmission falls under a completely different
> law than illegally accessing stored data, the defendant was arguing
> that he'd been charged under the wrong law, and the court agreed it
> was a valid point to investigate.
> 
> So my phone rang and I tried to help with the part of that (technical)
> I knew something about, how internet email is transmitted etc. But I
> was briefed on the legal aspects to help me focus on what they needed
> and I agreed it isn't /prima facie/ obvious.
> 
> For example you may see storing of email (which may not even mean to a
> physical disk) during transmission through intermediate servers as
> "storing of data" but then again many network devices have various
> buffering mechanisms in which data might reside for some amount of
> time. Are they legally distinguishable? Should they be? etc.
> 
> -- 
>-Barry Shein
> 
> Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | 
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Sabri Berisha]

Hi Anne,

I would argue that if you're not in the EU and have no presence there, you are 
safe from GDPR. No matter how much they EUSSR wants it, they cannot enforce 
their laws in other jurisdictions. What would happen if Russia would try to 
enforce their laws in the U.S.? Same thing.

GDPR is the most ridiculous piece of legislation I've ever read, and a clear 
indication of where the EUSSR is headed to. A bloated business unfriendly 
socialist continent.

Thanks,

Sabri Berisha, Network Engineer
CEO/President, Cluecentral Ventures Inc
Volunteer, Barrett Elementary School
Author: www.null.nl
Network Consultant
M.Sc, MBA, JNCIE-M/SP #261, JNCIP-M/SP #381, JNCIS-ER, JNCIS-ENT, JNCSP-SP, 
ECE-IPN #2
Board of Directors, Villanova HOA
Licensed Pilot
Former JTAC Engineer
Member: AAA


- On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:56 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. amitch...@isipp.com 
wrote:

>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:46 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>> 
>> My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
>> your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
>> already have it (probably most do.)
>> 
>> And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for this) will seek
>> expenses including but not limited to legal, judgements, reputational
>> recovery (e.g., cost of producing press releases), etc, incurred by
>> actions taken by customer.
> 
> These are all excellent suggestions - and while we're on the subject of that
> sort of thing, *everyone* should have warrantees of GDPR compliance in any of
> their third-party contracts in which data can be touched, and *also*
> indemnification clauses in those same contracts if you are held responsible
> because those third-parties were breached, etc., and found to *not* be in
> compliance with GDPR (for which GDPR specifically provides - i.e. GDPR can go
> through the third-party contract and hold *you* liable).  This is one of the
> ways that GDPR can seep in to get you even if you think you're safe because
> you're not in the EU.
> 
> Anne
> 
> ---
> 
> Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
> CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
> Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Legislative Consultant
> GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
> Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Rob McEwen]

I'm so tired of this thread - but the bottom line is that censorship and 
even the definition of "hate" and "racism" (especially when used in the 
vernacular!) are extremely subjective and can lead to situations where 
reasonable people disagree. And if/when such policies are implemented to 
try to limit or shut down such speech, horrific unintended collateral 
damage will LIKELY occur. Also, totalitarian regimes OFTEN use the same 
arguments to get their foot in the door of controlling and suppressing 
speech. Even now, the mainstream news media is ALREADY highlighting a 
very selective part of these murderer's ideologies, and suppressing 
other parts, in order to convey an overall impression of their 
ideologies that doesn't actually match them, but furthers certain biased 
agendas. So actions to suppress "hate speech" and "racism" based on the 
1/2 truths that most have been brainwashed to believe about these evil 
murderers' beliefs (1/2 contradicted by their own actual writings, which 
are already evil!), is ALREADY well on its way towards potentially 
causing collateral damage by unplugging or suppressing forums/platforms 
that really don't closely match the actual ideology of the shooters.


Again, I'm not defending the murderers in the slightest - I'm just 
saying that many of those in favor of limiting speech are the SAME crowd 
that is either publishing or consuming content that describes the 
shooters' ideologies in a certain particular way that purposely tries to 
make them look like a DIFFERENT group of deranged people, in order to 
advance a biased agenda. So we're already well on the way towards the 
collateral damage I mentioned above.


Also, I'm not saying that nothing should ever be done, or that we can't 
make any changes or improvements, but the cure might end up being 
potentially much worse than the disease if we're not careful.


--
Rob McEwen

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

On August 5, 2019 at 19:02 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu (Valdis Klētnieks) wrote:
 > 
 > Hint:  The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because many 
 > ISPs
 > aren't mere conduits.  And this thread got started regarding a CDN, which is 
 > very much
 > all about storing data on servers.

I acted as an expert witness for the FBI regarding a case which
revolved around whether email spending time on intermediate servers is
"storing" the data or is it just another form of wire transmission?

I don't think they came to a definitive conclusion, the case was
basically settled out of court, plea-bargained I think, it was a
criminal matter.

But needless to say, once again, a non-legal-expert's reading of
"storing data on servers" doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the
legal world.

It turned out to be very important at least in theory since illegally
intercepting a wire transmission falls under a completely different
law than illegally accessing stored data, the defendant was arguing
that he'd been charged under the wrong law, and the court agreed it
was a valid point to investigate.

So my phone rang and I tried to help with the part of that (technical)
I knew something about, how internet email is transmitted etc. But I
was briefed on the legal aspects to help me focus on what they needed
and I agreed it isn't /prima facie/ obvious.

For example you may see storing of email (which may not even mean to a
physical disk) during transmission through intermediate servers as
"storing of data" but then again many network devices have various
buffering mechanisms in which data might reside for some amount of
time. Are they legally distinguishable? Should they be? etc.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Anne,

Is the CLOUD Act germane to North American network operations (the mission of 
NANOG)? My understanding is that this ACT was to help solve problems the FBI 
had with obtaining remote data through overseas service providers, through SCA 
warrants.

SCA already compels U.S.- and Canada-based service providers, via warrant or 
subpoena, to provide requested data stored on servers. It doesn’t matter if the 
data are stored in the U.S. or in another country. I’m not seeing how CLOUD 
impacts any NANOG member, which just encompasses Canada and the US (Mexico has 
its own network operator’s group, LACNOG.)

I’m open to being educated, however.

 -mel


On Aug 6, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
mailto:amitch...@isipp.com>> wrote:

Hey guys, how about we talk about the CLOUD act now?

Anne

---

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Hey guys, how about we talk about the CLOUD act now?

Anne

---

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Valdis,

You agree that the CDN content is temporary, no? That is the definition of 
processes used by an ISP providing pure transport services. 

-mel via cell

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Valdis Klētnieks  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:15:36 -, Mel Beckman said:
> 
>> Not really. The customer provides the content on its own servers. The CDN
>> simply redistributes the content via temporary caching. It’s not a web 
>> hosting
>> provider. The CDN _customer_ hosts the content.
> 
> That's an... interesting.. interpretation.  Most people would see it as the 
> CDN
> doing the hosting, and the customer *providing* the content to be hosted.
> 
> Do you also believe that your outbox is hosting the e-mail I'm replying to, 
> and
> all the MTAs that got involved are just temporary caching?  Or did you provide
> a copy of the mail, and request that the MTAs distribute it?
> 
> (Also, if the CDN isn't a web hosting provider, why is it able to serve up 
> data
> on an http connection?  Hint - at one time, almost the entire web was static
> content, and even today a lot of it is file data not javascript and css. ;)

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:15:36 -, Mel Beckman said:

> Not really. The customer provides the content on its own servers. The CDN
> simply redistributes the content via temporary caching. It’s not a web 
> hosting
> provider. The CDN _customer_ hosts the content.

That's an... interesting.. interpretation.  Most people would see it as the CDN
doing the hosting, and the customer *providing* the content to be hosted.

Do you also believe that your outbox is hosting the e-mail I'm replying to, and
all the MTAs that got involved are just temporary caching?  Or did you provide
a copy of the mail, and request that the MTAs distribute it?

(Also, if the CDN isn't a web hosting provider, why is it able to serve up data
on an http connection?  Hint - at one time, almost the entire web was static
content, and even today a lot of it is file data not javascript and css. ;)


pgpiJj70vSHjU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Eric,

Not really. The customer provides the content on its own servers. The CDN 
simply redistributes the content via temporary caching. It’s not a web hosting 
provider. The CDN _customer_ hosts the content.

 -mel beckman

On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:09 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:

A CDN is a hosting company. It is the logical continuation and evolution of 
what an httpd hosting/server colo company was twenty years ago, but with more 
geographical scale and a great deal more automation tools.

I have never in my life seen a medium to large-sized hosting company that 
didn't have a ToS reserving the right to discontinue service at any time for 
arbitrary reasons.


On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 PM Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:
Valdis,

A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from 
arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customer’s content. The caching done by 
a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA.

The alternative is that you believe CDNs are not protected by safe Harbor. Is 
that the case?

-mel via cell

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Valdis Klētnieks 
> mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:40:43 -, Mel Beckman said:
>> The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”. ISPs
>> acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
>> servers.
>
> Note that ISPs whose business is 100% "acting as conduits" are in the 
> minority.
>
> Hint:  The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because many 
> ISPs
> aren't mere conduits.  And this thread got started regarding a CDN, which is 
> very much
> all about storing data on servers.
>

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Eric Kuhnke]

A CDN is a hosting company. It is the logical continuation and evolution of
what an httpd hosting/server colo company was twenty years ago, but with
more geographical scale and a great deal more automation tools.

I have never in my life seen a medium to large-sized hosting company that
didn't have a ToS reserving the right to discontinue service at any time
for arbitrary reasons.


On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 7:28 PM Mel Beckman  wrote:

> Valdis,
>
> A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers
> from arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customer’s content. The
> caching done by a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with
> the DMCA.
>
> The alternative is that you believe CDNs are not protected by safe Harbor.
> Is that the case?
>
> -mel via cell
>
> > On Aug 5, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Valdis Klētnieks 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:40:43 -, Mel Beckman said:
> >> The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”.
> ISPs
> >> acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything
> on
> >> servers.
> >
> > Note that ISPs whose business is 100% "acting as conduits" are in the
> minority.
> >
> > Hint:  The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because
> many ISPs
> > aren't mere conduits.  And this thread got started regarding a CDN,
> which is very much
> > all about storing data on servers.
> >
>

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 02:27:30 -, Mel Beckman said:

> A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from
> arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customer’s content. The caching 
> done by
> a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA.

Just because the DMCA says it's incidental doesn't mean that covers all bases.

Go read up on the mess that covers warrants for e-mail contents - the rules are
different for on-the-wire intercepts, mail that's in the queue and not
delivered to a mailbox yet, mail that's been delivered to a mailbox and not
read, and mail that's been read by the user and left in the mailbox, and mail 
that
the user has read and downloaded to their personal computer.

Anybody who thinks "DMCA says we have a safe harbor" is the be-all and end-all
of it is in for a rude awakening.

And if you have an NSL show up on your desk, you're in for a whole different 
world of
hurt - even finding and hiring a lawyer can be a problem when you can't tell the
lawyer you have an NSL problem until after you've hired them to help with your 
NSL
problem.  But I guarantee that if you tell the person handing you the NSL "DMCA 
says
I have a safe harbor, get out of my office", your day will get even worse.


pgpqh1T2dwco1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Valdis,

A CDN is very much an ISP. It is providing transport for its customers from 
arbitrary Internet destinations, to the customer’s content. The caching done by 
a CDN is incidental to this transport, in accordance with the DMCA. 

The alternative is that you believe CDNs are not protected by safe Harbor. Is 
that the case?

-mel via cell

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Valdis Klētnieks  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:40:43 -, Mel Beckman said:
>> The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”. ISPs
>> acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
>> servers.
> 
> Note that ISPs whose business is 100% "acting as conduits" are in the 
> minority.
> 
> Hint:  The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because many 
> ISPs
> aren't mere conduits.  And this thread got started regarding a CDN, which is 
> very much
> all about storing data on servers.
> 

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 20:40:43 -, Mel Beckman said:
> The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”. 
> ISPs
> acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on
> servers.

Note that ISPs whose business is 100% "acting as conduits" are in the minority.

Hint:  The DMCA has the text about data stored on ISP servers because many ISPs
aren't mere conduits.  And this thread got started regarding a CDN, which is 
very much
all about storing data on servers.



pgpZvSVs8so6j.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Keith Medcalf]

>Hey, I got my Network+ too.   dafuq is a "BGP"?

That's what the British get after too much Beer-o-clock.  A Bloody-Good-Puking 
...

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Bryan Fields]

On 8/5/19 4:57 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> TBH some of this is like watching someone try to set up a router using
> only the marketing brochures.

Hey, I got my Network+ too.   dafuq is a "BGP"?

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

One tiny bit of sermonizing not aimed at anyone in particular:

Interested amateurs tend to study the wording of laws.

Lawyers tend to study case law, actual cases and their outcomes.

In part that's because, besides the hazards of interpretation, laws
often conflict, supercede each other, modify each other, have
unexpressed limits particularly regarding jurisdiction and other
matters of process and applicability, etc etc etc and that all tends
to come out and get defined in the case law. And case law tends to be
dispositive, /stare decisis/ and all that, precedents.

And if that paragraph bored the crap out of you then good luck
guessing at what a few thousand pages of case law on a topic will do
to you.

TBH some of this is like watching someone try to set up a router using
only the marketing brochures.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Valdis,

The key misunderstanding on your part is the phrase “on your servers”. ISPs 
acting as conduits do not, by definition (in the DMCA), store anything on 
servers. Moreover, the DMCA specifically spells out that safe harbor protection 
“covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the 
information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made 
automatically in the operation of a network.”

And if the FBI, or whoever, through various technical means, managed to 
discover that illegal information passed through an ISPs network, they have no 
more cause of action than if that traffic passed through AT leased lines. Not 
that they haven’t tried.

 -mel

On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:34 AM, Valdis Klētnieks 
mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:19:06 -, Mel Beckman said:
I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What,
for example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable
for?

You get caught with nuclear weapons data, terrorism-related info, or kiddie
porn on your servers dropped there by a customer, you're going to be wishing
for a safe harbor that extends further than just copyright.

Whether you actually get one is going to depend on a *lot* of details of the
specific incident. At that point, don't listen to me, and don't listen to Anne,
hire a good lawyer who knows exactly what the rules are in your jurisdiction(s)
and listen to them :)

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Cloudflare is not an ISP. They are a CDN. You cannot ask them for a DSL or 
Cable connection, or even DIA.

Not that it matters: ISPs are not “Common Carriers” in statute or Common Law. 
The DMCA provides some protections which are similar to Common Carrier status, 
but that does not mean they have all the rights and responsibilities of Common 
Carriers.

And just to be really meta, that doesn’t matter either. Cloudflare did nothing 
wrong. While in the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything, the idea 8Chan will 
prevail in suing Cloudflare for violation of Common Carrier responsibilities, 
or even for 1st amendment free speech rights, it ludicrous on its face.

I am not terribly pleased with CF’s continued support of miscreants like 
“Booter Services” (read “DDoS-for-Hire”), but their lawyers are not idiots. And 
while you may not believe Anne, I know her and trust her judgement here. Plus I 
know a small amount about running CDNs. So I’m going to go with the consensus 
on the side of “not Common Carriers”. Feel free to disagree. But if you plan to 
convince the people reading this thread, you will have to do better than 
quoting snippets of the DMCA.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick



> On Aug 5, 2019, at 4:19 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> Keith, 
> 
> You’re confusing ISPs that merely provide transport services, such as AT 
> and Cloudfare, with information services like FaceBook and Twitter. The 
> Common Carrier status for legal protection of ISPs stems from the 1998 DMCA, 
> which long preceded the 2015 Network Neutrality act. It provides protection 
> only for an ISP that as a “provider merely acts as a data conduit, 
> transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at 
> someone else’s request.” The ISP loses that Common Carrier (in the Common Law 
> definition) protection if it alters the transmission in any way.
> 
> Just because an ISP isn’t a Common Carrier under FCC rules doesn’t mean that 
> it isn’t a Common Carrier for other purposes. Trains and planes, for example, 
> are Common Carriers, and the FCC has nothing to do with them. But they can’t 
> exclude passengers based on their speech (yet, anyway). 
> 
> -mel
> 
>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:54 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>>> 
>>> “Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly
>>> scheduled programming.”
>> 
>>> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>>> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
>> 
>> I think that is closing the barn door after the horse already left.
>> 
>> It is my understanding that in your fabulous United States of America that 
>> "carriers" (meaning having no content serving nor content consuming 
>> customers*) may be "common carriers" or can claim to be common carriers.  
>> The rest of you who are not pure carriers are, thanks to Ijit Pai, merely 
>> Information Services and do not have common carrier status, nor can you 
>> claim to be common carriers.
>> 
>> A "common carrier" is one who must provide carriage provided the fee for 
>> carriage is paid.  This is not the case for "Information Service" providers 
>> as they are not required to provide carriage to any who can pay the fee for 
>> carriage.
>> 
>> *I hate the term "content", it is somowhat lame.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
>> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Keith, 

You’re confusing ISPs that merely provide transport services, such as AT and 
Cloudfare, with information services like FaceBook and Twitter. The Common 
Carrier status for legal protection of ISPs stems from the 1998 DMCA, which 
long preceded the 2015 Network Neutrality act. It provides protection only for 
an ISP that as a “provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital 
information from one point on a network to another at someone else’s request.” 
The ISP loses that Common Carrier (in the Common Law definition) protection if 
it alters the transmission in any way.

Just because an ISP isn’t a Common Carrier under FCC rules doesn’t mean that it 
isn’t a Common Carrier for other purposes. Trains and planes, for example, are 
Common Carriers, and the FCC has nothing to do with them. But they can’t 
exclude passengers based on their speech (yet, anyway). 

 -mel

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:54 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>> 
>> “Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly
>> scheduled programming.”
> 
>> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
> 
> I think that is closing the barn door after the horse already left.
> 
> It is my understanding that in your fabulous United States of America that 
> "carriers" (meaning having no content serving nor content consuming 
> customers*) may be "common carriers" or can claim to be common carriers.  The 
> rest of you who are not pure carriers are, thanks to Ijit Pai, merely 
> Information Services and do not have common carrier status, nor can you claim 
> to be common carriers.
> 
> A "common carrier" is one who must provide carriage provided the fee for 
> carriage is paid.  This is not the case for "Information Service" providers 
> as they are not required to provide carriage to any who can pay the fee for 
> carriage.
> 
> *I hate the term "content", it is somowhat lame.
> 
> -- 
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Seth Mattinen]

On 8/5/19 10:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:
The best cure for speech is more speech. The President notwithstanding, 
hateful behavior has a hard time surviving the light of day. You 
shouldn't be the censor but you can shine the light.



That doesn't seem to work on Facebook, where people spew the most vile 
things under the banner of their own name.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:19:06 -, Mel Beckman said:
> I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What,
> for example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable
> for?

You get caught with nuclear weapons data, terrorism-related info, or kiddie
porn on your servers dropped there by a customer, you're going to be wishing
for a safe harbor that extends further than just copyright.

Whether you actually get one is going to depend on a *lot* of details of the
specific incident. At that point, don't listen to me, and don't listen to Anne,
hire a good lawyer who knows exactly what the rules are in your jurisdiction(s)
and listen to them :)



pgpGlDzCD_k2h.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Mel, this is to ack your note. "Because I'm a lawyer" isn't an argument at all, 
*nor have I made it* - however, that I'm extremely busy, and under no 
obligation to provide any of this information here, is.  I'm not here for 
academic debate.   You are also free to bring a lawsuit based on ISP as common 
carrier, but you will lose.

Anne

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 12:19 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> Anne of Many Titles,
> 
> I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What, 
> for example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be 
> liable for? Present an argument to make your case. “No, because I’m a lawyer 
> and you’re not” is not an argument :)
> 
> As clearly stated in DMC 512(a), the safe harbor provision for transitory 
> transport, which is what Cloudfare provides, 
> 
> "protects service providers who are passive conduits from liability for 
> copyright infringement, even if infringing traffic passes through their 
> networks. In other words, provided the infringing material is being 
> transmitted at the request of a third party to a designated recipient, is 
> handled by an automated process without human intervention, is not modified 
> in any way, and is only temporarily stored on the system, the service 
> provider is not liable for the transmission.” 
> 
> That’s not a law school student opinion. That’s the law itself. As I 
> previously said, I’m not talking about the FCC definition of CC. Under DMCA, 
> "service providers who are passive conduits” are the essence of the common 
> law definition of Common Carrier 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier).
> 
>  Incidentally, Network Neutrality wasn’t enacted until 2015, and classified 
> ISPs as FCC CCs purely to bring them under regulation by the FCC. DMCA was 
> passed in 1998, and Safe Harbor is based on the fact that ISPs are “passive 
> conduits". NN has nothing to do with the common carrier aspect of ISPs as 
> "service providers who are passive conduits”. 
> 
>  -mel
> 
>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Patrick,
>>> 
>>> You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom 
>>> regulatory purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants 
>>> ISPs protection from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long 
>>> as they operate as pure common carriers:
>>> 
>>> “Section 512(a) provides a safe harbor from liability for ISPs, provided 
>>> that they operate their networks within certain statutory bounds, generally 
>>> requiring the transmission of third-party information without interference, 
>>> modification, storage, or selection. [emphasis mine]
>>> 
>>> http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v27/27HarvJLTech257.pdf
>>> 
>>> -mel 
>> 
>> Section 512(a) applies very specifically to the copyright infringement issue 
>> as addressed in the DMCA.  While I don't disagree that this law school 
>> paper, written while Lovejoy was a law student, in 2013,  could be read as 
>> if ISPs were common carriers, they are not, and were not.   Even if it were 
>> headed that way, actions by the current FTC and administration rolled back 
>> net neutrality efforts in 2017, four years after this student paper was 
>> published.
>> 
>> All that said, this is very arcane stuff, and ever-mutating, so it's not at 
>> all difficult to see why reasonable people can differ about the meanings of 
>> various things out there. 
>> 
>> Anne
>> 
>> Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
>> CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
>> Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
>> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
>> Legislative Consultant
>> GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
>> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
>> Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
>> Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
>> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>> Member: California Bar Association
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

---

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Keith Medcalf]

On Monday, 5 August, 2019 10:25, Bryan Fields  wrote:

>I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their
>customer.  This was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least
>30 days under any hosting contract.  This scares the shit
>out of me as a customer; could cloudflare decide to give me
>no notice and shut my services off?

Yes.  This is in Cloudflare's Terms of Service.  You pay them and they provide 
services.  They may decide to terminate those services at any time, without any 
prior notice whatsoever, and keep your money.  You agree to this when you 
contract with them.

So I would suppose that this just means that you would not do business with 
Cloudflare.  That is your right.  If you do not like the contract provisions 
you are free not to contract with them.

If you do not mind that they may decide at any point in time for any reason or 
no reason at all to terminate your services and stop providing the service for 
which you have paid in advance (and without refund), then you are free to do so.

As always, the choice is yours.  No one compels you to do business with 
Cloudflare.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

The best cure for speech is more speech.

+1E07


On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:05 AM, William Herrin 
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:41 PM Mehmet Akcin 
mailto:meh...@akcin.net>> wrote:
Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going 
straight to the point.

Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the moderator of 
internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously there are some 
established laws around protecting copyrights, and other things which force us 
to legally take action and turn things down when reported.

What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?

De-anonymize them. Let them say what they'll say and defend their right to say 
it but don't let them hide behind your name. Promise that when the police come 
knocking and it appears to you to be a hate speech site, your privacy policy 
is: none whatsoever.

The best cure for speech is more speech. The President notwithstanding, hateful 
behavior has a hard time surviving the light of day. You shouldn't be the 
censor but you can shine the light.

(Also, as a practical matter the further you force folks to the fringe, the 
harder they are to track and thereby stop. Letting folks know you object by 
terminating their service does them more of a favor than cooperating with law 
enforcement.)

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Anne of Many Titles,

I notice you didn’t provide any actual data to support your position. What, for 
example, outside of copyright violations, could ISPs conceivably be liable for? 
Present an argument to make your case. “No, because I’m a lawyer and you’re 
not” is not an argument :)

As clearly stated in DMC 512(a), the safe harbor provision for transitory 
transport, which is what Cloudfare provides,

"protects service providers who are passive conduits from liability for 
copyright infringement, even if infringing traffic passes through their 
networks. In other words, provided the infringing material is being transmitted 
at the request of a third party to a designated recipient, is handled by an 
automated process without human intervention, is not modified in any way, and 
is only temporarily stored on the system, the service provider is not liable 
for the transmission.”

That’s not a law school student opinion. That’s the law itself. As I previously 
said, I’m not talking about the FCC definition of CC. Under DMCA, "service 
providers who are passive conduits” are the essence of the common law 
definition of Common Carrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier).

 Incidentally, Network Neutrality wasn’t enacted until 2015, and classified 
ISPs as FCC CCs purely to bring them under regulation by the FCC. DMCA was 
passed in 1998, and Safe Harbor is based on the fact that ISPs are “passive 
conduits". NN has nothing to do with the common carrier aspect of ISPs as 
"service providers who are passive conduits”.

 -mel

On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 
mailto:amitch...@isipp.com>> wrote:



On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:

Patrick,

You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom regulatory 
purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs protection 
from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they operate as 
pure common carriers:

“Section 512(a) provides a safe harbor from liability for ISPs, provided that 
they operate their networks within certain statutory bounds, generally 
requiring the transmission of third-party information without interference, 
modification, storage, or selection. [emphasis mine]

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v27/27HarvJLTech257.pdf

-mel

Section 512(a) applies very specifically to the copyright infringement issue as 
addressed in the DMCA.  While I don't disagree that this law school paper, 
written while Lovejoy was a law student, in 2013,  could be read as if ISPs 
were common carriers, they are not, and were not.   Even if it were headed that 
way, actions by the current FTC and administration rolled back net neutrality 
efforts in 2017, four years after this student paper was published.

All that said, this is very arcane stuff, and ever-mutating, so it's not at all 
difficult to see why reasonable people can differ about the meanings of various 
things out there.

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

LOL! You mean instead of “Keith gets to decide what’s on topic”? 

I didn’t “decide” anything, BTW. I simply pointed out that Common Carrier 
operations is within the NANOG mandate to discuss operational issues. 

 -mel

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Bryan Fields  wrote:
> 
> On 8/5/19 11:15 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.
> 
> Mel gets to decide what's on topic and off topic for the nanog list?
> 
> :D
> -- 
> Bryan Fields
> 
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:46 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
> your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
> already have it (probably most do.)
> 
> And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for this) will seek
> expenses including but not limited to legal, judgements, reputational
> recovery (e.g., cost of producing press releases), etc, incurred by
> actions taken by customer.

These are all excellent suggestions - and while we're on the subject of that 
sort of thing, *everyone* should have warrantees of GDPR compliance in any of 
their third-party contracts in which data can be touched, and *also* 
indemnification clauses in those same contracts if you are held responsible 
because those third-parties were breached, etc., and found to *not* be in 
compliance with GDPR (for which GDPR specifically provides - i.e. GDPR can go 
through the third-party contract and hold *you* liable).  This is one of the 
ways that GDPR can seep in to get you even if you think you're safe because 
you're not in the EU.

Anne

---

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[bzs]

My first suggestion would be to include an indemnification clause in
your contracts which includes liability for content, if you don't
already have it (probably most do.)

And a clause which indicates you (need lawyering for this) will seek
expenses including but not limited to legal, judgements, reputational
recovery (e.g., cost of producing press releases), etc, incurred by
actions taken by customer.

I've long had something like the latter regarding anyone using our
facilities to spam and I have billed spammers, and have collected some
of those bills.

I don't do this punitively. I really like to be paid for our time and
services!

Their behavior doesn't give them free access to our time even in the
form of responding to emails ("above and beyond normal") or phone
calls etc regarding their behavior.

I also included a clause that allows me to require an immediate
deposit if the outstanding bill rises above (pick a number) and
failure to provide that deposit or work out an arrangement is grounds
for suspension of services.

That allows for nearly immediate action rather than putting it into a
30 day billing cycle.

But the real power of generating that sort of bill is if they won't or
don't pay ok then they've been shut off not for their content etc but
for non-payment have a nice day.

And if they pay, ok.

As I said I have been paid generally with a promise to moderate their
behavior, usually involving too-aggressive email advertising causing a
lot of complaints. Perhaps not spamming in spirit but if we come in to
100+ complaints which need to be responded to I ain't payin' for that!

But beyond their right to express themselves, which I'm ok with, they
need to be financially responsible for their costs. Free speech is not
necessarily "free" as in beer.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:41 PM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously there
> are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and other things
> which force us to legally take action and turn things down when reported.
>
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
>

De-anonymize them. Let them say what they'll say and defend their right to
say it but don't let them hide behind your name. Promise that when the
police come knocking and it appears to you to be a hate speech site, your
privacy policy is: none whatsoever.

The best cure for speech is more speech. The President notwithstanding,
hateful behavior has a hard time surviving the light of day. You shouldn't
be the censor but you can shine the light.

(Also, as a practical matter the further you force folks to the fringe, the
harder they are to track and thereby stop. Letting folks know you object by
terminating their service does them more of a favor than cooperating with
law enforcement.)

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Michael Thomas]

On 8/5/19 9:24 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:

On 8/4/19 11:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:

What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?

I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the n-word makes them
cool, and then other bland users.


I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan
off its platform today after El Paso attack.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their customer.  This
was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least 30 days under any hosting
contract.  This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?

Well, we don't know what led up to this. Like do we know they weren't on 
notice?


Mike

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[James Downs]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:24:55PM -0400, Bryan Fields wrote:

> contract.  This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
> decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?

So much for the "free-speech absolutist".

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom 
> regulatory purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs 
> protection from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they 
> operate as pure common carriers:
> 
> “Section 512(a) provides a safe harbor from liability for ISPs, provided that 
> they operate their networks within certain statutory bounds, generally 
> requiring the transmission of third-party information without interference, 
> modification, storage, or selection. [emphasis mine]
> 
> http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v27/27HarvJLTech257.pdf
> 
>  -mel 

Section 512(a) applies very specifically to the copyright infringement issue as 
addressed in the DMCA.  While I don't disagree that this law school paper, 
written while Lovejoy was a law student, in 2013,  could be read as if ISPs 
were common carriers, they are not, and were not.   Even if it were headed that 
way, actions by the current FTC and administration rolled back net neutrality 
efforts in 2017, four years after this student paper was published.

All that said, this is very arcane stuff, and ever-mutating, so it's not at all 
difficult to see why reasonable people can differ about the meanings of various 
things out there. 

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Brielle]

On 8/5/2019 10:24 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:

I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their customer.  This
was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least 30 days under any hosting
contract.  This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?


If they were a paying customer...  sure, maybe 30 days.  However, if 
they're a paying customer, their agreement likely gives cloudflare an 
out under some situations.


If they aren't a paying customers, then you give them the amount of time 
in relation to how much they are paying.  In this case, if they are 
paying $0, then I think giving them until Midnight was being overly 
generous.




--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Bryan Fields]

On 8/5/19 11:15 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.

Mel gets to decide what's on topic and off topic for the nanog list?

:D
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
> customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal, 
> if offensive, content than the phone company can, without losing that common 
> carrier status.
> 
> Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry 
> the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?
> 
> In America we have the right to free speech, and the right to use common 
> carriers to carry that speech. If a common carrier chooses to censor legal 
> speech, which is what Cloudfare has done, then it loses its CC status and can 
> now be sued for that speech.
> 
> -mel beckman

ISPs are not common carriers, and, in fact, they have the right to carry - or 
to not carry - whatever traffic they choose.  In fact, for some aspects of 
Internet traffic, ISP immunity is specifically written into the law (cf. 
CAN-SPAM §8(c) which states that "(c) No EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF 
INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any 
effecton the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of 
the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access 
service of a policy of declining to transmit, route,relay, handle, or store 
certain types of electronic mail messages.").

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Member: California Bar Association

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Bryan Fields]

On 8/4/19 11:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?

I actually went and looked at 8chan, it would appear to me they have a bunch
of hate filled people there, 10 yr olds who think saying the n-word makes them
cool, and then other bland users.

> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan
> off its platform today after El Paso attack.
> https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I'd be more concerned with the lack of notice given to their customer.  This
was 24 hours notice, and I'd expect at least 30 days under any hosting
contract.  This scares the shit out of me as a customer; could cloudflare
decide to give me no notice and shut my services off?

Once you make the point that you're willing to play that game, how can you be
trusted as a provider?

> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
> reached, and used to end innocent lives?

These atrocities were committed by people willing to die for their cause, how
ever sick and fucked up it is.  There's little anyone can do against this sort
of actor, and it is why it's so terrifying.  I certainly don't have a solution
to it, but can say censorship is not the answer.

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Patrick,

You’re confusing the FCC’s definition of common carrier for telecom regulatory 
purposes, and the DMCA definition, which specifically grants ISPs protection 
from litigation through its Safe Harbor provision, as long as they operate as 
pure common carriers:

“Section 512(a) provides a safe harbor from liability for ISPs, provided that 
they operate their networks within certain statutory bounds, generally 
requiring the transmission of third-party information without interference, 
modification, storage, or selection. [emphasis mine]

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v27/27HarvJLTech257.pdf

 -mel

On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:43 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore 
mailto:patr...@ianai.net>> wrote:

Mel:

My understanding is ISPs are not Common Carriers. Didn’t we just have a big 
debate about this w/r/t Network Neutrality? I Am Not A Lawyer (hell, I am not 
even an ISP :), but if any legal experts want to chime in, please feel free to 
educate us.

Put another way, ISPs are not phone companies. Moreover, ISPs - and CDNs and 
hosting providers and etc. - can have terms of service which do not allow 
certain types of content on their platform. Again, that is is my understanding. 
Happy to be educated by someone who specializes in this type of law. I know 
there are a couple such people on NANOG-l.

--
TTFN,
patrick

P.S. Interesting choice equating a group founded on the principals that “Nazis 
are bad” and a group espousing Nazi ideas. But that’s very off-topic, so if you 
want to discuss, please do so directly.


On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:

Mehmet,

I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal, 
if offensive, content than the phone company can, without losing that common 
carrier status.

Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry 
the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?

In America we have the right to free speech, and the right to use common 
carriers to carry that speech. If a common carrier chooses to censor legal 
speech, which is what Cloudfare has done, then it loses its CC status and can 
now be sued for that speech.

-mel beckman

On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Keith Medcalf 
mailto:kmedc...@dessus.com>> wrote:


On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 21:41, Mehmet Akcin 
mailto:meh...@akcin.net>> wrote:

Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and
other things which force us to legally take action and turn things
down when reported.

What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like
8Chan?

I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking
8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
reached, and used to end innocent lives?

I do not quite understand this.

In days of yore, nutters used to send their screeds to Newspapers, TV and Radio 
stations.  Did you shut them down or move them to frequencies that could not be 
received with COTS TVs and Radios?  Did you ban the newspapers, put them out of 
business, or make it so their broadsheet was only available by travelling by 
aeroplane for 8 hours before breakfast?

Of course not, you silly duck!

There is an advantage to having all the nutters congregating on one place -- 
you know exactly where to find them.  Granted, the advantage is not exactly the 
same as we apply to politicians (or lawyers) who are kepts all in one place so 
that kinetic weapons can dispatch the whole lot at one go if necessary.

However, your solution of sweeping things you do not like under the rug is 
ill-conceived if not brain-dead in conception and you must not be permitted to 
carry out your objectives.  The fate of the free world depends on it.

However, do not worry.  US AG William Barr is doing a fine job deploying his 
"backdoors".  Why just the other day one of them was used to shut down the 
Georgia State Public Safety Services, and prior to that his "backdoors" were 
used to shut down several city computer systems in Florida and even the City of 
Baltimore.  Good work with those backdoors, Mr. Barr.  Job well done!

It is nincompoops who do not think about what they are doing that create such a 
bloody mess of things.  They should let the adults take care of it.

Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled 
programming.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Matt Harris]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:41 PM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
>

What is a "hate site" and who gets to decide what constitutes a "hate
site"? These are the most dangerous questions of our time, because once we
begin sliding down the slippery slope of unbounded, subjectively-determined
censorship, we may find that we don't agree with what all is being
censored. To make this point perhaps more saliently, the vast majority of
regimes worldwide that engage or have engaged in censorship have done so
primarily in order to quell dissent against their policies and leaders. We
could implement a "great firewall" much like China has, but how long would
it be before it was viewed as a useful political tool to silence
opposition?

Could you imagine one side determining that any content related to,
perhaps, safe access to abortion, is counter to their ideal society and
hence "too dangerous" to allow the citizenry to view? Could the other side
then determine just as easily that content related to, say, gun rights is
objectionable and dangerous, also?

In my humble opinion, no one can or should be trusted with that sort of
power, and that is why we have the first amendment in the US constitution.


> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan
> off its platform today after El Paso attack.
> https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
>

Cloudflare is a private entity and can host or not host whatever it wants,
of course.


> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
> reached, and used to end innocent lives?
>

Websites can't end innocent lives; only actions taken offline by their
participants can do that. Having all of these sites online and as
in-the-open as possible has a benefit of allowing law enforcement to
monitor activity therein through legal means which allow for oversight and
due process, US constitutional concepts which protect all of us from
potential abuses of power. If we as operators wish to help prevent crimes
and violence, then we should foster good relationships with law
enforcement, and inform them of anything that we notice which may be
related to the commission of or threats of violence. They can then follow
prescribed paths which protect everyone involved to determine whether
enforcement action is necessary/possible without violating anyones' rights.
I'm not claiming the system is perfect, of course, but I don't think
anyone's going to do a whole lot better.

There is no perfect system. Bad people can and will still do bad things.
The best that we each can do is to be aware of our surroundings at all
times both online and off, and protect ourselves, our families, our homes,
and our communities.

- Matt

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Keith Medcalf]

On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman  wrote:

>“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly
>scheduled programming.”

>Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common
>carrier? Seems pretty operational to me.

I think that is closing the barn door after the horse already left.

It is my understanding that in your fabulous United States of America that 
"carriers" (meaning having no content serving nor content consuming customers*) 
may be "common carriers" or can claim to be common carriers.  The rest of you 
who are not pure carriers are, thanks to Ijit Pai, merely Information Services 
and do not have common carrier status, nor can you claim to be common carriers.

A "common carrier" is one who must provide carriage provided the fee for 
carriage is paid.  This is not the case for "Information Service" providers as 
they are not required to provide carriage to any who can pay the fee for 
carriage.

*I hate the term "content", it is somowhat lame.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Harald Koch]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, at 11:30, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common 
> carrier? Seems pretty operational to me. 

American ISPs are not common carriers. When net neutrality was revoked on 
December 14, 2017, so was ISP's common carrier status / protection.

-- 
Harald

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Mel:

My understanding is ISPs are not Common Carriers. Didn’t we just have a big 
debate about this w/r/t Network Neutrality? I Am Not A Lawyer (hell, I am not 
even an ISP :), but if any legal experts want to chime in, please feel free to 
educate us.

Put another way, ISPs are not phone companies. Moreover, ISPs - and CDNs and 
hosting providers and etc. - can have terms of service which do not allow 
certain types of content on their platform. Again, that is is my understanding. 
Happy to be educated by someone who specializes in this type of law. I know 
there are a couple such people on NANOG-l.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

P.S. Interesting choice equating a group founded on the principals that “Nazis 
are bad” and a group espousing Nazi ideas. But that’s very off-topic, so if you 
want to discuss, please do so directly.


> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> Mehmet,
> 
> I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
> carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
> customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal, 
> if offensive, content than the phone company can, without losing that common 
> carrier status.
> 
> Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry 
> the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?
> 
> In America we have the right to free speech, and the right to use common 
> carriers to carry that speech. If a common carrier chooses to censor legal 
> speech, which is what Cloudfare has done, then it loses its CC status and can 
> now be sued for that speech.
> 
> -mel beckman
> 
>> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 21:41, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
>>> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
>>> there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and
>>> other things which force us to legally take action and turn things
>>> down when reported.
>> 
>>> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like
>>> 8Chan?
>> 
>>> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking
>>> 8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack.
>>> https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
>> 
>>> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
>>> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
>>> reached, and used to end innocent lives?
>> 
>> I do not quite understand this.  
>> 
>> In days of yore, nutters used to send their screeds to Newspapers, TV and 
>> Radio stations.  Did you shut them down or move them to frequencies that 
>> could not be received with COTS TVs and Radios?  Did you ban the newspapers, 
>> put them out of business, or make it so their broadsheet was only available 
>> by travelling by aeroplane for 8 hours before breakfast?
>> 
>> Of course not, you silly duck!
>> 
>> There is an advantage to having all the nutters congregating on one place -- 
>> you know exactly where to find them.  Granted, the advantage is not exactly 
>> the same as we apply to politicians (or lawyers) who are kepts all in one 
>> place so that kinetic weapons can dispatch the whole lot at one go if 
>> necessary.
>> 
>> However, your solution of sweeping things you do not like under the rug is 
>> ill-conceived if not brain-dead in conception and you must not be permitted 
>> to carry out your objectives.  The fate of the free world depends on it.
>> 
>> However, do not worry.  US AG William Barr is doing a fine job deploying his 
>> "backdoors".  Why just the other day one of them was used to shut down the 
>> Georgia State Public Safety Services, and prior to that his "backdoors" were 
>> used to shut down several city computer systems in Florida and even the City 
>> of Baltimore.  Good work with those backdoors, Mr. Barr.  Job well done!
>> 
>> It is nincompoops who do not think about what they are doing that create 
>> such a bloody mess of things.  They should let the adults take care of it.
>> 
>> Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled 
>> programming.
>> 
>> -- 
>> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
>> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Niels Bakker]

* m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Mon 05 Aug 2019, 17:21 CEST]:
Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for 
example, carry the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they 
going to cut them off too?


Finally, a centrist to point out the true culprits of all this violence

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mike Bolitho]

"I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
reached, and used to end innocent lives?"

As network operators? We shouldn't do anything. The onus falls on the
hosting companies. I do not want to go down the slippery slope of deciding
what traffic should or should not be allowed on the internet. That process
involves traffic sniffing and possibly attempting to break encryption to
see what's flowing through the pipes. I'm adamantly against that.

If I'm building and maintaining highways, I'm not opening up every single
truck to make sure there's nobody being smuggled inside. The trucking
company can police what cargo is in their trailers.

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 8:42 PM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously there
> are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and other things
> which force us to legally take action and turn things down when reported.
>
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
>
> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan
> off its platform today after El Paso attack.
> https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
>
> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
> reached, and used to end innocent lives?
>
> Mehmet
>
>
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled 
programming.”

Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common carrier? 
Seems pretty operational to me. 

 -mel 

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
> 
> Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled 
> programming.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

Peace,

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:42 AM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
> What can we do better as network operators about
> hate sites like 8Chan?

About nothing, because recent IETF developments like QUIC, ESNI, or
MASQUE would completely prohibit you from figuring out what sites you,
as an ISP, are giving an access to.  This is, uh, the very point of
those developments.

> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on
> kicking 8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack.

The 8chan shutdown is no more than a one off.  And I assume 8chan just
needs to change the name to get their service back.  There's no trend
whatsoever.

This is also sooo funny, because Cloudflare is happily protecting even
DDoS booters for almost a decade.

$ host -t A ddos-black.info
ddos-black.info has address 104.31.72.53
ddos-black.info has address 104.31.73.53
$ whois 104.31.72.53 | grep OrgName:
OrgName:Cloudflare, Inc.
$ host -t A ddos-stress.cc
ddos-stress.cc has address 104.28.4.14
ddos-stress.cc has address 104.28.5.14
$ whois 104.28.4.14 | grep OrgName:
OrgName:Cloudflare, Inc.
$

Those booters basically only exist because Cloudflare, OVH, and others
allow them to.  A booter business isn't very steady and profitable.
Without a cheap DDoS protection those services would be dead in weeks,
because sometimes their operators don't even know how to mitigate
their own attacks themselves.  So they get that protection from
Cloudflare, because apparently that doesn't violate "the Cloudflare
mission to help build a better Internet".

This is just one example.  Carding fraud, malware, illegal munitions,
drugs, whatever.  It's all there.  But, ya know, all those are much
better than some imageboard outta there. The latter is the root of all
evil.

--
Töma

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Mel Beckman]

Mehmet,

I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common 
carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from lawsuits due to the acts of their 
customers. ISPs such as Cloudfare can no more disconnect customers for legal, 
if offensive, content than the phone company can, without losing that common 
carrier status.

Cloudfare is being foolish, and hypocritical. They freely, for example, carry 
the equally offensive content of Antifa. Are they going to cut them off too?

In America we have the right to free speech, and the right to use common 
carriers to carry that speech. If a common carrier chooses to censor legal 
speech, which is what Cloudfare has done, then it loses its CC status and can 
now be sued for that speech.

 -mel beckman

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 21:41, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
>> 
>> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
>> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
>> there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and
>> other things which force us to legally take action and turn things
>> down when reported.
> 
>> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like
>> 8Chan?
> 
>> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking
>> 8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack.
>> https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
> 
>> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
>> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
>> reached, and used to end innocent lives?
> 
> I do not quite understand this.  
> 
> In days of yore, nutters used to send their screeds to Newspapers, TV and 
> Radio stations.  Did you shut them down or move them to frequencies that 
> could not be received with COTS TVs and Radios?  Did you ban the newspapers, 
> put them out of business, or make it so their broadsheet was only available 
> by travelling by aeroplane for 8 hours before breakfast?
> 
> Of course not, you silly duck!
> 
> There is an advantage to having all the nutters congregating on one place -- 
> you know exactly where to find them.  Granted, the advantage is not exactly 
> the same as we apply to politicians (or lawyers) who are kepts all in one 
> place so that kinetic weapons can dispatch the whole lot at one go if 
> necessary.
> 
> However, your solution of sweeping things you do not like under the rug is 
> ill-conceived if not brain-dead in conception and you must not be permitted 
> to carry out your objectives.  The fate of the free world depends on it.
> 
> However, do not worry.  US AG William Barr is doing a fine job deploying his 
> "backdoors".  Why just the other day one of them was used to shut down the 
> Georgia State Public Safety Services, and prior to that his "backdoors" were 
> used to shut down several city computer systems in Florida and even the City 
> of Baltimore.  Good work with those backdoors, Mr. Barr.  Job well done!
> 
> It is nincompoops who do not think about what they are doing that create such 
> a bloody mess of things.  They should let the adults take care of it.
> 
> Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled 
> programming.
> 
> -- 
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Joe Hamelin]

Well, once they let NetOps fire sales staff we can get some traction going.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474


On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 8:42 PM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> Ok, two mass shootings, touchy topic, lots of emotions this weekend. Going
> straight to the point.
>
> Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
> moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously there
> are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and other things
> which force us to legally take action and turn things down when reported.
>
> What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like 8Chan?
>
> I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking 8chan
> off its platform today after El Paso attack.
> https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/
>
> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
> reached, and used to end innocent lives?
>
> Mehmet
>
>
> --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903
>

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Keith Medcalf]

On Sunday, 4 August, 2019 21:41, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

>Most of us who operate internet services believe in not being the
>moderator of internet. We provide a service and that’s it. Obviously
>there are some established laws around protecting copyrights, and
>other things which force us to legally take action and turn things
>down when reported.

>What can we do better as network operators about hate sites like
>8Chan?

>I applaud cloudflare’s (perhaps slightly late) decision on kicking
>8chan off its platform today after El Paso attack.
>https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

>I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network
>operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found,
>reached, and used to end innocent lives?

I do not quite understand this.

In days of yore, nutters used to send their screeds to Newspapers, TV and Radio 
stations.  Did you shut them down or move them to frequencies that could not be 
received with COTS TVs and Radios?  Did you ban the newspapers, put them out of 
business, or make it so their broadsheet was only available by travelling by 
aeroplane for 8 hours before breakfast?

Of course not, you silly duck!

There is an advantage to having all the nutters congregating on one place -- 
you know exactly where to find them.  Granted, the advantage is not exactly the 
same as we apply to politicians (or lawyers) who are kepts all in one place so 
that kinetic weapons can dispatch the whole lot at one go if necessary.

However, your solution of sweeping things you do not like under the rug is 
ill-conceived if not brain-dead in conception and you must not be permitted to 
carry out your objectives.  The fate of the free world depends on it.

However, do not worry.  US AG William Barr is doing a fine job deploying his 
"backdoors".  Why just the other day one of them was used to shut down the 
Georgia State Public Safety Services, and prior to that his "backdoors" were 
used to shut down several city computer systems in Florida and even the City of 
Baltimore.  Good work with those backdoors, Mr. Barr.  Job well done!

It is nincompoops who do not think about what they are doing that create such a 
bloody mess of things.  They should let the adults take care of it.

Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly scheduled 
programming.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Fred Baker]

> On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:41 PM, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
> 
> I am sure there are many sites like this out there, but could network 
> operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be found, reached, 
> and used to end innocent lives?

I''d suggest reducing their reputation rankings, as reported by SpamHous and 
their kin. That's not to say that "Spamhaus and their kin must", although that 
would be one implementation. Another would be to include them also some other 
ranking mechanism in the analysis, and reduce the reputation of such sites in 
the implied alternative.

Another would be to include such rankings in their calculations of whom to 
accept as customers - BGP or otherwise - and if some AS seems to accept such as 
customers, not accept them. I imagine they do, to some extent, but this could 
be followed up more closely.

Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

[Ryan Hamel]

> could network operators do anything to make these sites “not so easy” to be 
> found, reached, and used to end innocent lives?

Nope. If they follow the word of the providers and services they use, there is 
no reason to terminate the service. CloudFlare terminating 8chan's service was 
a one off thing. Search rankings have nothing to do with the hosting or proxy 
provider. If 8chan is coloed, the only options are feds seizing hardware or 
tapping their connectivity.
Ryan